28 M. Hobley approach “combining improvements in human and social capital with advances in locally adapted resource management techniques and the creation of financial instruments” 43 is an important combination and an interesting progression away from approaches that have generally limited their support to more technically based interventions. 4. Participants need help in exploiting opportunities to increase the benefits they obtain from forest product activities. Constraints in the way of smallholders’ access to markets need to be removed. Improved access to credit, skills, marketing services etc., may be required. A good example of the increasing experience with this type of support is provided by the PROCY- MAF project (Proyecto de Conservación y Manejo Sostenible de Recursos Forestales) in Mexico. It has focussed on strengthening producer organisations and overcoming value chain “gaps.” 44 This support is packaged with the supply of business services, which develop the skills of producer organisation leaders and members. A range of other programmes across the world are focussing on the better harvesting and marketing of a wide variety of NTFPs through understanding value chains and developing producer skills at entering markets in a more informed and secure environment. 5. Participants need help in moving out of dead-end forest product activities. An important example of this is firewood collection for sale in the market, often conducted by women who say they would rather be employed in other easier activities that are not so physically burdensome and poorly paid. It is often an activity of last resort and does not lead to opportunity to move out of these poverty confining conditions. 3. Outline of Tools Baseline assessment: To build understanding of people’s livelihoods and well-being, exposure to risk, and vulnerability, there are a range of tools that have been gathered under the 43 IISD et al, 2003. 44 Scherr et al, 2003. umbrella of livelihoods analysis. These include survey methodologies and participatory appraisal approaches and are discussed in other chapters in this book. A useful guide to the range of tools and their applications can be found on Web sites including www.livelihoods.org. With this baseline assessment, it is then possible to begin to work with local people to identify different approaches to support their relationships with forests and forest products. It can be used as the basis for implementation and for later evaluation to assess the degree of change in exposure to risk and reduction in vulnerability as a result of livelihood interventions. Tools for engagement: Voice, as has already been discussed, is an essential element of changing relationships and shifting power. Building poor people’s capabilities to be able to influence decisions and policy is a key part of any restoration effort. Participatory tools and social mobilisation approaches are all used to build people’s capabilities, but often voice is most strongly developed as poor people’s livelihoods become more secure. Community-based cost-benefit analysis: For communities, changing their use of forests and forest lands depends very much on individual and collective cost-benefit analyses. Communities are likely to be prepared to manage forests only if they offer greater benefit than under other uses of the land on which the forests grow. Such analyses are an essential part of any landscape restoration initiative because unless these costs and benefits are understood and factored into the process, initiatives will fail where perceived costs of maintaining the forest outweigh the tentative benefits. This is where ecosystem service payment schemes become an important part of the analysis and where it will be important to change local incentives and attitudes toward forests. 45 Additionally, focus on market access is critical where poor access and low values for forest products act as major barriers and disincentives. 45 Arnold, 2001.
Facilitating access to green markets: Providing mechanisms and funds that allow local people to access markets for ecosystem services such as watershed protection, biodiversity protection, etc., is another important element of changing the relationship between people’s livelihoods and the forest resource. Forest certification can also be used to help forest managers to access higher value markets. There are some successful experiences with communitybased certification in Latin America, 46 although the certification costs are often very high for small community groups and much more still needs to be done to provide standards that facilitate access of community managed natural timber into the green markets. Securing tenure and management rights: Clearly tenure or at least long-term management rights are important elements in any forest restoration effort. There are now many models of communities that own forests with evidence of the incentives this creates for wise management. Tenure is often highly contested and requires careful work with governments to build an environment in which it is possible to shift tenure patterns. Often this requires significant evidence that changing tenure arrangements does lead to fundamental environmental and social benefits. 4. Future Needs In any process of restoration, and perhaps particularly restoration projects driven by conservation concerns, some key messages need to be incorporated into the planning and implementation of any programme: • Recognition of the differential importance of forests, products, and services on different people and therefore the differential impacts of changes in forest quality and extent; • Recognition of the role of forests in poverty prevention as well as poverty reduction; • The need to involve people in the decisionmaking process to build voice and capacity to articulate voice in an institutional and politi- 4. The Impacts of Degradation and Forest Loss on Human Well-Being 29 cal environment that is able to respond to these voices; • Recognition of the need to support the building of livelihoods that reduce people’s exposure to risk and remove vulnerabilities; • Recognition that forests alone do not necessarily move people out of poverty but actually can secure them in poverty; • Support to decentralised service provision that can be socially responsive and tailored to particular ecological and economic conditions 47 ; • Impacts of restoration also need to be carefully considered. Just as the impacts of degradation are not equally felt across livelihood groups, it is the case with restoration. Restoration of forest cover for some may have negative livelihood implications. Often the beneficiaries of restoration are not those living locally to the forest but are downstream users of services, therefore, the distribution of costs and benefits of restoration need to be carefully considered. References 46 Molnar et al, 2004. 47 Ribot, 2002. Arnold, M. 2001. 25 Years of Community Forestry. FAO, Rome. Blankenberg, F. 1995. Methods of Impact Assessment Research Programme, Resource Pack and Discussion. Oxfam UK/I and Novib, the Hague. Brocklesby, M.A. 2004. Planning against risk: tools for analysing vulnerability in remote rural areas. Chars Organisational Learning Paper 2, DFID, London, www.livelihoods.org. Byron, N., and Arnold, M. 1997. What futures for the people of the tropical forests? CIFOR working paper No 19. CIFOR, Bogor, www.cifor.cgiar.org. de Satgé, R. 2002. Learning about livelihoods: insights from Southern Africa. Periperi Publications, South Africa and Oxfam Publishing, Oxford. Hobley, M. 2004. The Voice-responsiveness framework: creating political space for the extreme poor. Chars Organisational Learning Paper 3, DFID, London, www.livelihoods.org. IISD, SEI, IUCN, and Intercooperation. 2003. Livelihoods and climate change: increasing the